Re: AMBER: Tough time with antechamber

From: David A. Case <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:42:56 -0800

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008, David Mobley wrote:

> For the reason Junmei points out, I always prefer to use mol2 files as
> input to antechamber over pdb files. I often use the OpenEye tools
> (free to academics) for generating mol2 files from IUPAC names,
> crystal structures, etc.

This is a good point, but doesn't really invalidate the point the antechamber
can have problems when the input strutures are bad. (Junmei: we need to put
something in the Users' Manual about this.) I suspect that in many cases,
doing a simple geomtry optimization with AM1 or PM3 before giving the
structure to antechamber might be a real help. It might be worth having an
option in antechamber to do just that.

Also, the bcc charge procedure creates an AM1-optimized geometry, but then
discards it, and writes out the original geometry in the output files. Should
we change this behavior, or have a flag that could keep the optimized
geometry? At a minimum, it should be possible for the user to see what AM1
did to their structure.


The AMBER Mail Reflector
To post, send mail to
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amber" to
Received on Sun Jan 27 2008 - 06:07:21 PST
Custom Search